Predicting the length of a transaction

ABSTRACT

In a multi-processor transaction execution environment a transaction is executed a plurality of times. Based on the executions, a duration is predicted for executing the transaction. Based on the predicted duration, a threshold is determined. Pending aborts of the transaction due to memory conflicts are suppressed based on the transaction exceeding the determined threshold.

FIELD

This disclosure relates generally to transactional memory systems andmore specifically to a method, computer program and computer system fortransactional processing.

BACKGROUND

The number of central processing unit (CPU) cores on a chip and thenumber of CPU cores connected to a shared memory continues to growsignificantly to support growing workload capacity demand. Theincreasing number of CPUs cooperating to process the same workloads putsa significant burden on software scalability; for example, shared queuesor data-structures protected by traditional semaphores become hot spotsand lead to sub-linear n-way scaling curves. Traditionally this has beencountered by implementing finer-grained locking in software, and withlower latency/higher bandwidth interconnects in hardware. Implementingfine-grained locking to improve software scalability can be verycomplicated and error-prone, and at today's CPU frequencies, thelatencies of hardware interconnects are limited by the physicaldimension of the chips and systems, and by the speed of light.

Implementations of hardware Transactional Memory (TM) have beenintroduced, wherein a group of instructions, called a transaction,operate atomically and in isolation (sometimes called “serializability”)on a data structure in memory. The transaction executes optimisticallywithout obtaining a lock, but may need to abort and retry thetransaction execution if an operation, of the executing transaction, ona memory location conflicts with anther operation on the same memorylocation. Previously, software transactional memory implementations havebeen proposed to support software Transactional Memory (TM). However,hardware TM can provide improved performance aspects and ease of useover software TM.

U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2004/0044850 titled “Method andapparatus for the synchronization of distributed caches” filed 2002 Aug.28 and incorporated by reference herein teaches A method and apparatusfor the synchronization of distributed caches. More particularly, thepresent embodiment to cache memory systems and more particularly to ahierarchical caching protocol suitable for use with distributed caches,including use within a caching input/output (I/O) hub.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,586,297 titled “Partial cache line write transactions ina computing system with a write back cache” filed 1994 Mar. 24 andincorporated by reference herein teaches A computing system is presentedwhich includes a memory, an input/output adapter and a processor. Theprocessor includes a write back cache in which dirty data may be stored.When performing a coherent write from the input/output adapter to thememory, a block of data is written from the input/output adapter to amemory location within the memory. The block of data contains less datathan a full cache line in the write back cache. The write back cache issearched to determine whether the write back cache contains data for thememory location. When the search determines that the write back cachecontains data for the memory location a full cache line which containsthe data for the memory location is purged.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Predicting a length of a transaction in a multi-processor transactionexecution environment is provided. According to an embodiment of thedisclosure, predicting a length of a transaction in a multi-processortransaction execution environment may include: executing, by aprocessor, a transactional memory (TM) transaction; receiving, from apredictor of the processor, a predicted duration corresponding to the TMtransaction; calculating a duration for the execution of the TMtransaction; determining a threshold value; calculating a new predictedduration for the execution of the TM transaction; and suppressing, bythe processor, abort events from causing the TM transaction to abortbefore completing, based on the calculated duration exceeding the newpredicted duration.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

Features and advantages of the present disclosure will become apparentfrom the following detailed description of illustrative embodimentsthereof, which is to be read in connection with the accompanyingdrawings. The various features of the drawings are not to scale as theillustrations are for clarity in facilitating one skilled in the art inunderstanding the disclosure in conjunction with the detaileddescription. In the drawings:

FIGS. 1 and 2 depict an example multicore Transactional Memoryenvironment, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 3 depicts example components of an example CPU, in accordance withembodiments of the present disclosure;

FIG. 4 depicts a flow diagram of a method for predicting the length of atransaction, according to an exemplary embodiment;

FIG. 5 depicts an exemplary flow of transactional processing; and

FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram of hardware and software of thecomputer environment according to at least one exemplary embodiment ofthe method of FIG. 4.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Historically, a computer system or processor had only a single processor(aka processing unit or central processing unit). The processor includedan instruction processing unit (IPU), a branch unit, a memory controlunit and the like. Such processors were capable of executing a singlethread of a program at a time. Operating systems were developed thatcould time-share a processor by dispatching a program to be executed onthe processor for a period of time, and then dispatching another programto be executed on the processor for another period of time. Astechnology evolved, memory subsystem caches were often added to theprocessor as well as complex dynamic address translation includingtranslation lookaside buffers (TLBs). The IPU itself was often referredto as a processor. As technology continued to evolve, an entireprocessor, could be packaged as a single semiconductor chip or die, sucha processor was referred to as a microprocessor. Then processors weredeveloped that incorporated multiple IPUs, such processors were oftenreferred to as multi-processors. Each such processor of amulti-processor computer system (processor) may include individual orshared caches, memory interfaces, system bus, address translationmechanism and the like. Virtual machine and instruction set architecture(ISA) emulators added a layer of software to a processor, that providedthe virtual machine with multiple “virtual processors” (aka processors)by time-slice usage of a single IPU in a single hardware processor. Astechnology further evolved, multi-threaded processors were developed,enabling a single hardware processor having a single multi-thread IPU toprovide a capability of simultaneously executing threads of differentprograms, thus each thread of a multi-threaded processor appeared to theoperating system as a processor. As technology further evolved, it waspossible to put multiple processors (each having an IPU) on a singlesemiconductor chip or die. These processors were referred to processorcores or just cores. Thus the terms such as processor, centralprocessing unit, processing unit, microprocessor, core, processor core,processor thread, and thread, for example, are often usedinterchangeably. Aspects of embodiments herein may be practiced by anyor all processors including those shown supra, without departing fromthe teachings herein. Wherein the term “thread” or “processor thread” isused herein, it is expected that particular advantage of the embodimentmay be had in a processor thread implementation.

Transaction Execution in Intel® Based Embodiments

In “Intel® Architecture Instruction Set Extensions ProgrammingReference” 319433-012A, February 2012, incorporated herein by referencein its entirety, Chapter 8 teaches, in part, that multithreadedapplications may take advantage of increasing numbers of CPU cores toachieve higher performance. However, the writing of multi-threadedapplications requires programmers to understand and take into accountdata sharing among the multiple threads. Access to shared data typicallyrequires synchronization mechanisms. These synchronization mechanismsare used to ensure that multiple threads update shared data byserializing operations that are applied to the shared data, oftenthrough the use of a critical section that is protected by a lock. Sinceserialization limits concurrency, programmers try to limit the overheaddue to synchronization.

Intel® Transactional Synchronization Extensions (Intel® TSX) allow aprocessor to dynamically determine whether threads need to be serializedthrough lock-protected critical sections, and to perform thatserialization only when required. This allows the processor to exposeand exploit concurrency that is hidden in an application because ofdynamically unnecessary synchronization.

With Intel® TSX, programmer-specified code regions (also referred to as“transactional regions” or just “transactions”) are executedtransactionally. If the transactional execution completes successfully,then all memory operations performed within the transactional regionwill appear to have occurred instantaneously when viewed from otherprocessors. A processor makes the memory operations of the executedtransaction, performed within the transactional region, visible to otherprocessors only when a successful commit occurs, i.e., when thetransaction successfully completes execution. This process is oftenreferred to as an atomic commit.

Intel® TSX provides two software interfaces to specify regions of codefor transactional execution. Hardware Lock Elision (HLE) is a legacycompatible instruction set extension (comprising the XACQUIRE andXRELEASE prefixes) to specify transactional regions. RestrictedTransactional Memory (RTM) is a new instruction set interface(comprising the XBEGIN, XEND, and XABORT instructions) for programmersto define transactional regions in a more flexible manner than thatpossible with HLE. HLE is for programmers who prefer the backwardcompatibility of the conventional mutual exclusion programming model andwould like to run HLE-enabled software on legacy hardware but would alsolike to take advantage of the new lock elision capabilities on hardwarewith HLE support. RTM is for programmers who prefer a flexible interfaceto the transactional execution hardware. In addition, Intel® TSX alsoprovides an XTEST instruction. This instruction allows software to querywhether the logical processor is transactionally executing in atransactional region identified by either HLE or RTM.

Since a successful transactional execution ensures an atomic commit, theprocessor executes the code region optimistically without explicitsynchronization. If synchronization was unnecessary for that specificexecution, execution can commit without any cross-thread serialization.If the processor cannot commit atomically, then the optimistic executionfails. When this happens, the processor will roll back the execution, aprocess referred to as a transactional abort. On a transactional abort,the processor will discard all updates performed in the memory regionused by the transaction, restore architectural state to appear as if theoptimistic execution never occurred, and resume executionnon-transactionally.

A processor can perform a transactional abort for numerous reasons. Aprimary reason to abort a transaction is due to conflicting memoryaccesses between the transactionally executing logical processor andanother logical processor. Such conflicting memory accesses may preventa successful transactional execution. Memory addresses read from withina transactional region constitute the read-set of the transactionalregion and addresses written to within the transactional regionconstitute the write-set of the transactional region. Intel® TSXmaintains the read- and write-sets at the granularity of a cache line. Aconflicting memory access occurs if another logical processor eitherreads a location that is part of the transactional region's write-set orwrites a location that is a part of either the read- or write-set of thetransactional region. A conflicting access typically means thatserialization is required for this code region. Since Intel® TSX detectsdata conflicts at the granularity of a cache line, unrelated datalocations placed in the same cache line will be detected as conflictsthat result in transactional aborts. Transactional aborts may also occurdue to limited transactional resources. For example, the amount of dataaccessed in the region may exceed an implementation-specific capacity.Additionally, some instructions and system events may causetransactional aborts. Frequent transactional aborts result in wastedcycles and increased inefficiency.

Hardware Lock Elision

Hardware Lock Elision (HLE) provides a legacy compatible instruction setinterface for programmers to use transactional execution. HLE providestwo new instruction prefix hints: XACQUIRE and XRELEASE.

With HLE, a programmer adds the XACQUIRE prefix to the front of theinstruction that is used to acquire the lock that is protecting thecritical section. The processor treats the prefix as a hint to elide thewrite associated with the lock acquire operation. Even though the lockacquire has an associated write operation to the lock, the processordoes not add the address of the lock to the transactional region'swrite-set nor does it issue any write requests to the lock. Instead, theaddress of the lock is added to the read-set. The logical processorenters transactional execution. If the lock was available before theXACQUIRE prefixed instruction, then all other processors will continueto see the lock as available afterwards. Since the transactionallyexecuting logical processor neither added the address of the lock to itswrite-set nor performed externally visible write operations to the lock,other logical processors can read the lock without causing a dataconflict. This allows other logical processors to also enter andconcurrently execute the critical section protected by the lock. Theprocessor automatically detects any data conflicts that occur during thetransactional execution and will perform a transactional abort ifnecessary.

Even though the eliding processor did not perform any external writeoperations to the lock, the hardware ensures program order of operationson the lock. If the eliding processor itself reads the value of the lockin the critical section, it will appear as if the processor had acquiredthe lock, i.e. the read will return the non-elided value. This behaviorallows an HLE execution to be functionally equivalent to an executionwithout the HLE prefixes.

An XRELEASE prefix can be added in front of an instruction that is usedto release the lock protecting a critical section. Releasing the lockinvolves a write to the lock. If the instruction is to restore the valueof the lock to the value the lock had prior to the XACQUIRE prefixedlock acquire operation on the same lock, then the processor elides theexternal write request associated with the release of the lock and doesnot add the address of the lock to the write-set. The processor thenattempts to commit the transactional execution.

With HLE, if multiple threads execute critical sections protected by thesame lock but they do not perform any conflicting operations on eachother's data, then the threads can execute concurrently and withoutserialization. Even though the software uses lock acquisition operationson a common lock, the hardware recognizes this, elides the lock, andexecutes the critical sections on the two threads without requiring anycommunication through the lock—if such communication was dynamicallyunnecessary.

If the processor is unable to execute the region transactionally, thenthe processor will execute the region non-transactionally and withoutelision. HLE enabled software has the same forward progress guaranteesas the underlying non-HLE lock-based execution. For successful HLEexecution, the lock and the critical section code must follow certainguidelines. These guidelines only affect performance; and failure tofollow these guidelines will not result in a functional failure.Hardware without HLE support will ignore the XACQUIRE and XRELEASEprefix hints and will not perform any elision since these prefixescorrespond to the REPNE/REPE IA-32 prefixes which are ignored on theinstructions where XACQUIRE and XRELEASE are valid. Importantly, HLE iscompatible with the existing lock-based programming model. Improper useof hints will not cause functional bugs though it may expose latent bugsalready in the code.

Restricted Transactional Memory (RTM) provides a flexible softwareinterface for transactional execution. RTM provides three newinstructions—XBEGIN, XEND, and XABORT—for programmers to start, commit,and abort a transactional execution.

The programmer uses the XBEGIN instruction to specify the start of atransactional code region and the XEND instruction to specify the end ofthe transactional code region. If the RTM region could not besuccessfully executed transactionally, then the XBEGIN instruction takesan operand that provides a relative offset to the fallback instructionaddress.

A processor may abort RTM transactional execution for many reasons. Inmany instances, the hardware automatically detects transactional abortconditions and restarts execution from the fallback instruction addresswith the architectural state corresponding to that present at the startof the XBEGIN instruction and the EAX register updated to describe theabort status.

The XABORT instruction allows programmers to abort the execution of anRTM region explicitly. The XABORT instruction takes an 8-bit immediateargument that is loaded into the EAX register and will thus be availableto software following an RTM abort. RTM instructions do not have anydata memory location associated with them. While the hardware providesno guarantees as to whether an RTM region will ever successfully committransactionally, most transactions that follow the recommendedguidelines are expected to successfully commit transactionally. However,programmers must always provide an alternative code sequence in thefallback path to guarantee forward progress. This may be as simple asacquiring a lock and executing the specified code regionnon-transactionally. Further, a transaction that always aborts on agiven implementation may complete transactionally on a futureimplementation. Therefore, programmers must ensure the code paths forthe transactional region and the alternative code sequence arefunctionally tested.

Detection of HLE Support

A processor supports HLE execution if CPUID.07H.EBX.HLE [bit 4]=1.However, an application can use the HLE prefixes (XACQUIRE and XRELEASE)without checking whether the processor supports HLE. Processors withoutHLE support ignore these prefixes and will execute the code withoutentering transactional execution.

Detection of RTM Support

A processor supports RTM execution if CPUID.07H.EBX.RTM [bit 11]=1. Anapplication must check if the processor supports RTM before it uses theRTM instructions (XBEGIN, XEND, XABORT). These instructions willgenerate a #UD exception when used on a processor that does not supportRTM.

Detection of XTEST Instruction

A processor supports the XTEST instruction if it supports either HLE orRTM. An application must check either of these feature flags beforeusing the XTEST instruction. This instruction will generate a #UDexception when used on a processor that does not support either HLE orRTM.

Querying Transactional Execution Status

The XTEST instruction can be used to determine the transactional statusof a transactional region specified by HLE or RTM. Note, while the HLEprefixes are ignored on processors that do not support HLE, the XTESTinstruction will generate a #UD exception when used on processors thatdo not support either HLE or RTM.

Requirements for HLE Locks

For HLE execution to successfully commit transactionally, the lock mustsatisfy certain properties and access to the lock must follow certainguidelines.

An XRELEASE prefixed instruction must restore the value of the elidedlock to the value it had before the lock acquisition. This allowshardware to safely elide locks by not adding them to the write-set. Thedata size and data address of the lock release (XRELEASE prefixed)instruction must match that of the lock acquire (XACQUIRE prefixed) andthe lock must not cross a cache line boundary.

Software should not write to the elided lock inside a transactional HLEregion with any instruction other than an XRELEASE prefixed instruction,otherwise such a write may cause a transactional abort. In addition,recursive locks (where a thread acquires the same lock multiple timeswithout first releasing the lock) may also cause a transactional abort.Note that software can observe the result of the elided lock acquireinside the critical section. Such a read operation will return the valueof the write to the lock.

The processor automatically detects violations to these guidelines, andsafely transitions to a non-transactional execution without elision.Since Intel® TSX detects conflicts at the granularity of a cache line,writes to data collocated on the same cache line as the elided lock maybe detected as data conflicts by other logical processors eliding thesame lock.

Transactional Nesting

Both HLE and RTM support nested transactional regions. However, atransactional abort restores state to the operation that startedtransactional execution: either the outermost XACQUIRE prefixed HLEeligible instruction or the outermost XBEGIN instruction. The processortreats all nested transactions as one transaction.

HLE Nesting and Elision

Programmers can nest HLE regions up to an implementation specific depthof MAX_HLE_NEST_COUNT. Each logical processor tracks the nesting countinternally but this count is not available to software. An XACQUIREprefixed HLE-eligible instruction increments the nesting count, and anXRELEASE prefixed HLE-eligible instruction decrements it. The logicalprocessor enters transactional execution when the nesting count goesfrom zero to one. The logical processor attempts to commit only when thenesting count becomes zero. A transactional abort may occur if thenesting count exceeds MAX_HLE_NEST_COUNT.

In addition to supporting nested HLE regions, the processor can alsoelide multiple nested locks. The processor tracks a lock for elisionbeginning with the XACQUIRE prefixed HLE eligible instruction for thatlock and ending with the XRELEASE prefixed HLE eligible instruction forthat same lock. The processor can, at any one time, track up to aMAX_HLE_ELIDED_LOCKS number of locks. For example, if the implementationsupports a MAX_HLE_ELIDED_LOCKS value of two and if the programmer neststhree HLE identified critical sections (by performing XACQUIRE prefixedHLE eligible instructions on three distinct locks without performing anintervening XRELEASE prefixed HLE eligible instruction on any one of thelocks), then the first two locks will be elided, but the third won't beelided (but will be added to the transaction's writeset). However, theexecution will still continue transactionally. Once an XRELEASE for oneof the two elided locks is encountered, a subsequent lock acquiredthrough the XACQUIRE prefixed HLE eligible instruction will be elided.

The processor attempts to commit the HLE execution when all elidedXACQUIRE and XRELEASE pairs have been matched, the nesting count goes tozero, and the locks have satisfied requirements. If execution cannotcommit atomically, then execution transitions to a non-transactionalexecution without elision as if the first instruction did not have anXACQUIRE prefix.

RTM Nesting

Programmers can nest RTM regions up to an implementation specificMAX_RTM_NEST_COUNT. The logical processor tracks the nesting countinternally but this count is not available to software. An XBEGINinstruction increments the nesting count, and an XEND instructiondecrements the nesting count. The logical processor attempts to commitonly if the nesting count becomes zero. A transactional abort occurs ifthe nesting count exceeds MAX_RTM_NEST_COUNT.

Nesting HLE and RTM

HLE and RTM provide two alternative software interfaces to a commontransactional execution capability. Transactional processing behavior isimplementation specific when HLE and RTM are nested together, e.g., HLEis inside RTM or RTM is inside HLE-. However, in all cases, theimplementation will maintain HLE and RTM semantics. An implementationmay choose to ignore HLE hints when used inside RTM regions, and maycause a transactional abort when RTM instructions are used inside HLEregions. In the latter case, the transition from transactional tonon-transactional execution occurs seamlessly since the processor willre-execute the HLE region without actually doing elision, and thenexecute the RTM instructions.

Abort Status Definition

RTM uses the EAX register to communicate abort status to software.Following an RTM abort the EAX register has the following definition.

TABLE 1 RTM Abort Status Definition EAX Register Bit Position Meaning 0Set if abort caused by XABORT instruction 1 If set, the transaction maysucceed on retry, this bit is always clear if bit 0 is set 2 Set ifanother logical processor conflicted with a memory address that was partof the transaction that aborted 3 Set if an internal buffer overflowed 4Set if a debug breakpoint was hit 5 Set if an abort occurred duringexecution of a nested transaction 23:6  Reserved 31-24 XABORT argument(only valid if bit 0 set, otherwise reserved)

The EAX abort status for RTM only provides causes for aborts. It doesnot by itself encode whether an abort or commit occurred for the RTMregion. The value of EAX can be 0 following an RTM abort. For example, aCPUID instruction when used inside an RTM region causes a transactionalabort and may not satisfy the requirements for setting any of the EAXbits. This may result in an EAX value of 0.

RTM Memory Ordering

A successful RTM commit causes all memory operations in the RTM regionto appear to execute atomically. A successfully committed RTM regionconsisting of an XBEGIN followed by an XEND, even with no memoryoperations in the RTM region, has the same ordering semantics as a LOCKprefixed instruction.

The XBEGIN instruction does not have fencing semantics. However, if anRTM execution aborts, then all memory updates from within the RTM regionare discarded and are not made visible to any other logical processor.

RTM-Enabled Debugger Support

By default, any debug exception inside an RTM region will cause atransactional abort and will redirect control flow to the fallbackinstruction address with architectural state recovered and bit 4 in EAXset. However, to allow software debuggers to intercept execution ondebug exceptions, the RTM architecture provides additional capability.

If bit 11 of DR7 and bit 15 of the IA32_DEBUGCTL_MSR are both 1, any RTMabort due to a debug exception (#DB) or breakpoint exception (#BP)causes execution to roll back and restart from the XBEGIN instructioninstead of the fallback address. In this scenario, the EAX register willalso be restored back to the point of the XBEGIN instruction.

Programming Considerations

Typical programmer-identified regions are expected to transactionallyexecute and commit successfully. However, Intel® TSX does not provideany such guarantee. A transactional execution may abort for manyreasons. To take full advantage of the transactional capabilities,programmers should follow certain guidelines to increase the probabilityof their transactional execution committing successfully.

This section discusses various events that may cause transactionalaborts. The architecture ensures that updates performed within atransaction that subsequently aborts execution will never becomevisible. Only committed transactional executions initiate an update tothe architectural state. Transactional aborts never cause functionalfailures and only affect performance.

Instruction Based Considerations

Programmers can use any instruction safely inside a transaction (HLE orRTM) and can use transactions at any privilege level. However, someinstructions will always abort the transactional execution and causeexecution to seamlessly and safely transition to a non-transactionalpath.

Intel® TSX allows for most common instructions to be used insidetransactions without causing aborts. The following operations inside atransaction do not typically cause an abort:

-   -   Operations on the instruction pointer register, general purpose        registers (GPRs) and the status flags (CF, OF, SF, PF, AF, and        ZF); and    -   Operations on XMM and YMM registers and the MXCSR register.

However, programmers must be careful when intermixing SSE and AVXoperations inside a transactional region. Intermixing SSE instructionsaccessing XMM registers and AVX instructions accessing YMM registers maycause transactions to abort. Programmers may use REP/REPNE prefixedstring operations inside transactions. However, long strings may causeaborts. Further, the use of CLD and STD instructions may cause aborts ifthey change the value of the DF flag. However, if DF is 1, the STDinstruction will not cause an abort. Similarly, if DF is 0, then the CLDinstruction will not cause an abort.

Instructions not enumerated here as causing abort when used inside atransaction will typically not cause a transaction to abort (examplesinclude but are not limited to MFENCE, LFENCE, SFENCE, RDTSC, RDTSCP,etc.).

The following instructions will abort transactional execution on anyimplementation:

-   -   XABORT    -   CPUID    -   PAUSE

In addition, in some implementations, the following instructions mayalways cause transactional aborts. These instructions are not expectedto be commonly used inside typical transactional regions. However,programmers must not rely on these instructions to force a transactionalabort, since whether they cause transactional aborts is implementationdependent.

-   -   Operations on X87 and MMX architecture state. This includes all        MMX and X87 instructions, including the FXRSTOR and FXSAVE        instructions.    -   Update to non-status portion of EFLAGS: CLI, STI, POPFD, POPFQ,        CLTS.    -   Instructions that update segment registers, debug registers        and/or control registers: MOV to DS/ES/FS/GS/SS, POP        DS/ES/FS/GS/SS, LDS, LES, LFS, LGS, LSS, SWAPGS, WRFSBASE,        WRGSBASE, LGDT, SGDT, LIDT, SIDT, LLDT, SLDT, LTR, STR, Far        CALL, Far JMP, Far RET, IRET, MOV to DRx, MOV to        CR0/CR2/CR3/CR4/CR8 and LMSW.    -   Ring transitions: SYSENTER, SYSCALL, SYSEXIT, and SYSRET.    -   TLB and Cacheability control: CLFLUSH, INVD, WBINVD, INVLPG,        INVPCID, and memory instructions with a non-temporal hint        (MOVNTDQA, MOVNTDQ, MOVNTI, MOVNTPD, MOVNTPS, and MOVNTQ).    -   Processor state save: XSAVE, XSAVEOPT, and XRSTOR.    -   Interrupts: INTn, INTO.    -   IO: IN, INS, REP INS, OUT, OUTS, REP OUTS and their variants.    -   VMX: VMPTRLD, VMPTRST, VMCLEAR, VMREAD, VMWRITE, VMCALL,        VMLAUNCH, VMRESUME, VMXOFF, VMXON, INVEPT, and INVVPID.    -   SMX: GETSEC.    -   UD2, RSM, RDMSR, WRMSR, HLT, MONITOR, MWAIT, XSETBV, VZEROUPPER,        MASKMOVQ, and V/MASKMOVDQU.

Runtime Considerations

In addition to the instruction-based considerations, runtime events maycause transactional execution to abort. These may be due to data accesspatterns or micro-architectural implementation features. The followinglist is not a comprehensive discussion of all abort causes.

Any fault or trap in a transaction that must be exposed to software willbe suppressed. Transactional execution will abort and execution willtransition to a non-transactional execution, as if the fault or trap hadnever occurred. If an exception is not masked, then that un-maskedexception will result in a transactional abort and the state will appearas if the exception had never occurred.

Synchronous exception events (#DE, #OF, #NP, #SS, #GP, #BR, #UD, #AC,#XF, #PF, #NM, #TS, #MF, #DB, #BP/INT3) that occur during transactionalexecution may cause an execution not to commit transactionally, andrequire a non-transactional execution. These events are suppressed as ifthey had never occurred. With HLE, since the non-transactional code pathis identical to the transactional code path, these events will typicallyre-appear when the instruction that caused the exception is re-executednon-transactionally, causing the associated synchronous events to bedelivered appropriately in the non-transactional execution. Asynchronousevents (NMI, SMI, INTR, IPI, PMI, etc.) occurring during transactionalexecution may cause the transactional execution to abort and transitionto a non-transactional execution. The asynchronous events will be pendedand handled after the transactional abort is processed.

Transactions only support write-back cacheable memory type operations. Atransaction may always abort if the transaction includes operations onany other memory type. This includes instruction fetches to UC memorytype.

Memory accesses within a transactional region may require the processorto set the Accessed and Dirty flags of the referenced page table entry.The behavior of how the processor handles this is implementationspecific. Some implementations may allow the updates to these flags tobecome externally visible even if the transactional region subsequentlyaborts. Some Intel® TSX implementations may choose to abort thetransactional execution if these flags need to be updated. Further, aprocessor's page-table walk may generate accesses to its owntransactionally written but uncommitted state. Some Intel® TSXimplementations may choose to abort the execution of a transactionalregion in such situations. Regardless, the architecture ensures that, ifthe transactional region aborts, then the transactionally written statewill not be made architecturally visible through the behavior ofstructures such as TLBs.

Executing self-modifying code transactionally may also causetransactional aborts. Programmers must continue to follow the Intelrecommended guidelines for writing self-modifying and cross-modifyingcode even when employing HLE and RTM. While an implementation of RTM andHLE will typically provide sufficient resources for executing commontransactional regions, implementation constraints and excessive sizesfor transactional regions may cause a transactional execution to abortand transition to a non-transactional execution. The architectureprovides no guarantee of the amount of resources available to dotransactional execution and does not guarantee that a transactionalexecution will ever succeed.

Conflicting requests to a cache line accessed within a transactionalregion may prevent the transaction from executing successfully. Forexample, if logical processor P0 reads line A in a transactional regionand another logical processor P1 writes line A (either inside or outsidea transactional region) then logical processor P0 may abort if logicalprocessor P1's write interferes with processor P0's ability to executetransactionally.

Similarly, if P0 writes line A in a transactional region and P1 reads orwrites line A (either inside or outside a transactional region), then P0may abort if P1's access to line A interferes with P0's ability toexecute transactionally. In addition, other coherence traffic may attimes appear as conflicting requests and may cause aborts. While thesefalse conflicts may happen, they are expected to be uncommon. Theconflict resolution policy to determine whether P0 or P1 aborts in theabove scenarios is implementation specific.

Generic Transaction Execution Embodiments:

According to “ARCHITECTURES FOR TRANSACTIONAL MEMORY”, a dissertationsubmitted to the Department of Computer Science and the Committee onGraduate Studies of Stanford University in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, by Austen McDonald,June 2009, incorporated by reference herein in its entirety,fundamentally, there are three mechanisms needed to implement an atomicand isolated transactional region: versioning, conflict detection, andcontention management.

To make a transactional code region appear atomic, all the modificationsperformed by that transactional code region must be stored and keptisolated from other transactions until commit time. The system does thisby implementing a versioning policy. Two versioning paradigms exist:eager and lazy. An eager versioning system stores newly generatedtransactional values in place and stores previous memory values on theside, in what is called an undo-log. A lazy versioning system stores newvalues temporarily in what is called a write buffer, copying them tomemory only on commit. In either system, the cache is used to optimizestorage of new versions.

To ensure serializability between transactions, conflicts must bedetected and resolved. The two systems, i.e., the eager and lazyversioning systems, detect conflicts by implementing a conflictdetection policy, either optimistic or pessimistic. An optimistic systemexecutes transactions in parallel, checking for conflicts only when atransaction commits. A pessimistic systems check for conflicts at eachload and store. Similar to versioning, conflict detection also uses thecache, marking each line as either part of the read-set, part of thewrite-set, or both. The two systems resolve conflicts by implementing acontention management policy. Many contention management policies exist,some are more appropriate for optimistic conflict detection and some aremore appropriate for pessimistic. Described below are some examplepolicies.

Since each transactional memory (TM) system needs both versioningdetection and conflict detection, these options give rise to fourdistinct TM designs: Eager-Pessimistic (EP), Eager-Optimistic (EO),Lazy-Pessimistic (LP), and Lazy-Optimistic (LO). Table 2 brieflydescribes all four distinct TM designs.

FIGS. 1 and 2 depict an example of a multicore TM environment. FIG. 1shows many TM-enabled CPUs (CPU1 114 a, CPU2 114 b, etc.) on one die100, connected with an interconnect 122 under management of aninterconnect control 120 a, 120 b. Each CPU 114 a, 114 b (also known asa Processor) may have a split cache consisting of an Instruction Cache116 a, 116 b for caching instructions from memory to be executed and aData Cache 118 a, 118 b with TM support for caching data (operands) ofmemory locations to be operated on by the CPU 114 a, 114 b. In animplementation, caches of multiple dies 100 are interconnected tosupport cache coherency between the caches of the multiple dies 100. Inan implementation, a single cache, rather than the split cache isemployed holding both instructions and data. In implementations, the CPUcaches are one level of caching in a hierarchical cache structure. Forexample each die 100 may employ a shared cache 124 to be shared amongstall the CPUs 114 a, 114 b on the die 100. In another implementation,each die 100 may have access to a shared cache 124, shared amongst allthe processors of all the dies 100.

FIG. 2 shows the details of an example transactional CPU 114, includingadditions to support TM. The transactional CPU 114 (processor) mayinclude hardware for supporting Register Checkpoints 126 and special TMRegisters 128. The transactional CPU cache may have the MESI bits 130,Tags 140 and Data 142 of a conventional cache but also, for example, Rbits 132 showing a line has been read by the CPU 114 while executing atransaction and W bits 138 showing a line has been written-to by the CPU114 while executing a transaction.

A key detail for programmers in any TM system is how non-transactionalaccesses interact with transactions. By design, transactional accessesare screened from each other using the mechanisms above. However, theinteraction between a regular, non-transactional load with a transactioncontaining a new value for that address must still be considered. Inaddition, the interaction between a non-transactional store with atransaction that has read that address must also be explored. These areissues of the database concept isolation.

A TM system is said to implement strong isolation, sometimes calledstrong atomicity, when every non-transactional load and store acts likean atomic transaction. Therefore, non-transactional loads cannot seeuncommitted data and non-transactional stores cause atomicity violationsin any transactions that have read that address. A system where this isnot the case is said to implement weak isolation, sometimes called weakatomicity.

Strong isolation is often more desirable than weak isolation due to therelative ease of conceptualization and implementation of strongisolation. Additionally, if a programmer has forgotten to surround someshared memory references with transactions, causing bugs, then withstrong isolation, the programmer will often detect that oversight usinga simple debug interface because the programmer will see anon-transactional region causing atomicity violations. Also, programswritten in one model may work differently on another model.

Further, strong isolation is often easier to support in hardware TM thanweak isolation. With strong isolation, since the coherence protocolalready manages load and store communication between processors,transactions can detect non-transactional loads and stores and actappropriately. To implement strong isolation in software TransactionalMemory (TM), non-transactional code must be modified to include read-and write-barriers; potentially crippling performance. Although greateffort has been expended to remove many un-needed barriers, suchtechniques are often complex and performance is typically far lower thanthat of HTMs.

TABLE 2 Transactional Memory Design Space VERSIONING Lazy Eager CONFLICTOptimistic Storing updates in a write Not practical: waiting to updateDETECTION buffer; detecting conflicts at memory until commit time butcommit time. detecting conflicts at access time guarantees wasted workand provides no advantage Pessimistic Storing updates in a writeUpdating memory, keeping old buffer; detecting conflicts at values inundo log; detecting access time. conflicts at access time.

Table 2 illustrates the fundamental design space of transactional memory(versioning and conflict detection).

Eager-Pessimistic (EP)

This first TM design described below is known as Eager-Pessimistic. AnEP system stores its write-set “in place” (hence the name “eager”) and,to support rollback, stores the old values of overwritten lines in an“undo log”. Processors use the W 138 and R 132 cache bits to track readand write-sets and detect conflicts when receiving snooped loadrequests. Perhaps the most notable examples of EP systems in knownliterature are LogTM and UTM.

Beginning a transaction in an EP system is much like beginning atransaction in other systems: tm_begin( ) takes a register checkpoint,and initializes any status registers. An EP system also requiresinitializing the undo log, the details of which are dependent on the logformat, but often involve initializing a log base pointer to a region ofpre-allocated, thread-private memory, and clearing a log boundsregister.

Versioning: In EP, due to the way eager versioning is designed tofunction, the MESI 130 state transitions (cache line indicatorscorresponding to Modified, Exclusive, Shared, and Invalid code states)are left mostly unchanged. Outside of a transaction, the MESI 130 statetransitions are left completely unchanged. When reading a line inside atransaction, the standard coherence transitions apply (S (Shared)→S, I(Invalid)→S, or I→E (Exclusive)), issuing a load miss as needed, but theR bit 132 is also set. Likewise, writing a line applies the standardtransitions (S→M, E→I, I→M), issuing a miss as needed, but also sets theW (Written) bit 138. The first time a line is written, the old versionof the entire line is loaded then written to the undo log to preserve itin case the current transaction aborts. The newly written data is thenstored “in-place,” over the old data.

Conflict Detection: Pessimistic conflict detection uses coherencemessages exchanged on misses, or upgrades, to look for conflicts betweentransactions. When a read miss occurs within a transaction, otherprocessors receive a load request; but they ignore the request if theydo not have the needed line. If the other processors have the neededline non-speculatively or have the line R 132 (Read), they downgradethat line to S, and in certain cases issue a cache-to-cache transfer ifthey have the line in MESI's M or E state. However, if the cache has theline W 138, then a conflict is detected between the two transactions andadditional action(s) must be taken.

Similarly, when a transaction seeks to upgrade a line from shared tomodified (on a first write), the transaction issues an exclusive loadrequest, which is also used to detect conflicts. If a receiving cachehas the line non-speculatively, then the line is invalidated, and incertain cases a cache-to-cache transfer (M or E states) is issued. But,if the line is R 132 or W 138, a conflict is detected.

Validation: Because conflict detection is performed on every load, atransaction always has exclusive access to its own write-set. Therefore,validation does not require any additional work.

Commit: Since eager versioning stores the new version of data items inplace, the commit process simply clears the W 138 and R 132 bits anddiscards the undo log.

Abort: When a transaction rolls back, the original version of each cacheline in the undo log must be restored, a process called “unrolling” or“applying” the log. This is done during tm_discard( ) and must be atomicwith regard to other transactions. Specifically, the write-set muststill be used to detect conflicts: this transaction has the only correctversion of lines in its undo log, and requesting transactions must waitfor the correct version to be restored from that log. Such a log can beapplied using a hardware state machine or software abort handler.

Eager-Pessimistic has the characteristics of: Commit is simple and sinceit is in-place, very fast. Similarly, validation is a no-op. Pessimisticconflict detection detects conflicts early, thereby reducing the numberof “doomed” transactions. For example, if two transactions are involvedin a Write-After-Read dependency, then that dependency is detectedimmediately in pessimistic conflict detection. However, in optimisticconflict detection such conflicts are not detected until the writercommits.

Eager-Pessimistic also has the characteristics of: As described above,the first time a cache line is written, the old value must be written tothe log, incurring extra cache accesses. Aborts are expensive as theyrequire undoing the log. For each cache line in the log, a load must beissued, perhaps going as far as main memory before continuing to thenext line. Pessimistic conflict detection also prevents certainserializable schedules from existing.

Additionally, because conflicts are handled as they occur, there is apotential for livelock and careful contention management mechanisms mustbe employed to guarantee forward progress.

Lazy-Optimistic (LO)

Another popular TM design is Lazy-Optimistic (LO), which stores itswrite-set in a “write buffer” or “redo log” and detects conflicts atcommit time (still using the R and W bits).

Versioning: Just as in the EP system, the MESI protocol of the LO designis enforced outside of the transactions. Once inside a transaction,reading a line incurs the standard MESI transitions but also sets the Rbit 132. Likewise, writing a line sets the W bit 138 of the line, buthandling the MESI transitions of the LO design is different from that ofthe EP design. First, with lazy versioning, the new versions of writtendata are stored in the cache hierarchy until commit while othertransactions have access to old versions available in memory or othercaches. To make available the old versions, dirty lines (M lines) mustbe evicted when first written by a transaction. Second, no upgrademisses are needed because of the optimistic conflict detection feature:if a transaction has a line in the S state, it can simply write to itand upgrade that line to an M state without communicating the changeswith other transactions because conflict detection is done at committime.

Conflict Detection and Validation: To validate a transaction and detectconflicts, LO communicates the addresses of speculatively modified linesto other transactions only when it is preparing to commit. Onvalidation, the processor sends one, potentially large, network packetcontaining all the addresses in the write-set. Data is not sent, butleft in the cache of the committer and marked dirty (M). To build thispacket without searching the cache for lines marked W, a simple bitvector is used, called a “store buffer,” with one bit per cache line totrack these speculatively modified lines. Other transactions use thisaddress packet to detect conflicts: if an address is found in the cacheand the R 132 and/or W 138 bits are set, then a conflict is initiated.If the line is found but neither R132 nor W 138 is set, then the line issimply invalidated, which is similar to processing an exclusive load.

To support transaction atomicity, these address packets must be handledatomically, i.e., no two address packets may exist at once with the sameaddresses. In an LO system, this can be achieved by simply acquiring aglobal commit token before sending the address packet. However, atwo-phase commit scheme could be employed by first sending out theaddress packet, collecting responses, enforcing an ordering protocol(perhaps oldest transaction first), and committing once all responsesare satisfactory.

Commit: Once validation has occurred, commit needs no special treatment:simply clear W 138 and R 132 bits and the store buffer. Thetransaction's writes are already marked dirty in the cache and othercaches' copies of these lines have been invalidated via the addresspacket. Other processors can then access the committed data through theregular coherence protocol.

Abort: Rollback is equally easy: because the write-set is containedwithin the local caches, these lines can be invalidated, then clear W138 and R 132 bits and the store buffer. The store buffer allows W linesto be found to invalidate without the need to search the cache.

Lazy-Optimistic has the characteristics of: Aborts are very fast,requiring no additional loads or stores and making only local changes.More serializable schedules can exist than found in EP, which allows anLO system to more aggressively speculate that transactions areindependent, which can yield higher performance. Finally, the latedetection of conflicts can increase the likelihood of forward progress.

Lazy-Optimistic also has the characteristics of: Validation takes globalcommunication time proportional to size of write set. Doomedtransactions can waste work since conflicts are detected only at committime.

Lazy-Pessimistic (LP)

Lazy-Pessimistic (LP) represents a third TM design option, sittingsomewhere between EP and LO: storing newly written lines in a writebuffer but detecting conflicts on a per access basis.

Versioning: Versioning is similar but not identical to that of LO:reading a line sets its R bit 132, writing a line sets its W bit 138,and a store buffer is used to track W lines in the cache. Also, dirty(M) lines must be evicted when first written by a transaction, just asin LO. However, since conflict detection is pessimistic, load exclusivesmust be performed when upgrading a transactional line from I, S→M, whichis unlike LO.

Conflict Detection: LP's conflict detection operates the same as EP's:using coherence messages to look for conflicts between transactions.

Validation: Like in EP, pessimistic conflict detection ensures that atany point, a running transaction has no conflicts with any other runningtransaction, so validation is a no-op.

Commit: Commit needs no special treatment: simply clear W 138 and R 132bits and the store buffer, like in LO.

Abort: Rollback is also like that of LO: simply invalidate the write-setusing the store buffer and clear the W 138 and R 132 bits and the storebuffer.

Eager-Optimistic (EO)

The LP has the characteristics of: Like LO, aborts are very fast. LikeEP, the use of pessimistic conflict detection reduces the number of“doomed” transactions Like EP, some serializable schedules are notallowed and conflict detection must be performed on each cache miss.

The final combination of versioning and conflict detection isEager-Optimistic (EO). EO may be a less than optimal choice for HTMsystems: since new transactional versions are written in-place, othertransactions have no choice but to notice conflicts as they occur (i.e.,as cache misses occur). But since EO waits until commit time to detectconflicts, those transactions become “zombies,” continuing to execute,wasting resources, yet are “doomed” to abort.

EO has proven to be useful in STMs and is implemented by Bartok-STM andMcRT. A lazy versioning STM needs to check its write buffer on each readto ensure that it is reading the most recent value. Since the writebuffer is not a hardware structure, this is expensive, hence thepreference for write-in-place eager versioning. Additionally, sincechecking for conflicts is also expensive in an STM, optimistic conflictdetection offers the advantage of performing this operation in bulk.

Contention Management

How a transaction rolls back once the system has decided to abort thattransaction has been described above, but, since a conflict involves twotransactions, the topics of which transaction should abort, how thatabort should be initiated, and when should the aborted transaction beretried need to be explored. These are topics that are addressed byContention Management (CM), a key component of transactional memory.Described below are policies regarding how the systems initiate abortsand the various established approaches of managing which transactionsshould abort in a conflict.

Contention Management Policies

A Contention Management (CM) Policy is a mechanism that determines whichtransaction involved in a conflict should abort and when the abortedtransaction should be retried. For example, it is often the case thatretrying an aborted transaction immediately does not lead to the bestperformance. Conversely, employing a back-off mechanism, which delaysthe retrying of an aborted transaction, can yield better performance.STMs first grappled with finding the best contention management policiesand many of the policies outlined below were originally developed forSTMs.

CM Policies draw on a number of measures to make decisions, includingages of the transactions, size of read- and write-sets, the number ofprevious aborts, etc. The combinations of measures to make suchdecisions are endless, but certain combinations are described below,roughly in order of increasing complexity.

To establish some nomenclature, first note that in a conflict there aretwo sides: the attacker and the defender. The attacker is thetransaction requesting access to a shared memory location. Inpessimistic conflict detection, the attacker is the transaction issuingthe load or load exclusive. In optimistic, the attacker is thetransaction attempting to validate. The defender in both cases is thetransaction receiving the attacker's request.

An Aggressive CM Policy immediately and always retries either theattacker or the defender. In LO, Aggressive means that the attackeralways wins, and so Aggressive is sometimes called committer wins. Sucha policy was used for the earliest LO systems. In the case of EP,Aggressive can be either defender wins or attacker wins.

Restarting a conflicting transaction that will immediately experienceanother conflict is bound to waste work—namely interconnect bandwidthrefilling cache misses. A Polite CM Policy employs exponential backoff(but linear could also be used) before restarting conflicts. To preventstarvation, a situation where a process does not have resourcesallocated to it by the scheduler, the exponential backoff greatlyincreases the odds of transaction success after some n retries.

Another approach to conflict resolution is to randomly abort theattacker or defender (a policy called Randomized). Such a policy may becombined with a randomized backoff scheme to avoid unneeded contention.

However, making random choices, when selecting a transaction to abort,can result in aborting transactions that have completed “a lot of work”,which can waste resources. To avoid such waste, the amount of workcompleted on the transaction can be taken into account when determiningwhich transaction to abort. One measure of work could be a transaction'sage. Other methods include Oldest, Bulk TM, Size Matters, Karma, andPolka. Oldest is a simple timestamp method that aborts the youngertransaction in a conflict. Bulk TM uses this scheme. Size Matters islike Oldest but instead of transaction age, the number of read/writtenwords is used as the priority, reverting to Oldest after a fixed numberof aborts. Karma is similar, using the size of the write-set aspriority. Rollback then proceeds after backing off a fixed amount oftime. Aborted transactions keep their priorities after being aborted(hence the name Karma). Polka works like Karma but instead of backingoff a predefined amount of time, it backs off exponentially more eachtime.

Since aborting wastes work, it is logical to argue that stalling anattacker until the defender has finished their transaction would lead tobetter performance. Unfortunately, such a simple scheme easily leads todeadlock.

Deadlock avoidance techniques can be used to solve this problem. Greedyuses two rules to avoid deadlock. The first rule is, if a firsttransaction, T1, has lower priority than a second transaction, T0, or ifT1 is waiting for another transaction, then T1 aborts when conflictingwith T0. The second rule is, if T1 has higher priority than T0 and isnot waiting, then T0 waits until T1 commits, aborts, or starts waiting(in which case the first rule is applied). Greedy provides someguarantees about time bounds for executing a set of transactions. One EPdesign (LogTM) uses a CM policy similar to Greedy to achieve stallingwith conservative deadlock avoidance.

Example MESI coherency rules provide for four possible states in which acache line of a multiprocessor cache system may reside, M, E, S, and I,defined as follows:

Modified (M): The cache line is present only in the current cache, andis dirty; it has been modified from the value in main memory. The cacheis required to write the data back to main memory at some time in thefuture, before permitting any other read of the (no longer valid) mainmemory state. The write-back changes the line to the Exclusive state.

Exclusive (E): The cache line is present only in the current cache, butis clean; it matches main memory. It may be changed to the Shared stateat any time, in response to a read request. Alternatively, it may bechanged to the Modified state when writing to it.

Shared (S): Indicates that this cache line may be stored in other cachesof the machine and is “clean”; it matches the main memory. The line maybe discarded (changed to the Invalid state) at any time.

Invalid (I): Indicates that this cache line is invalid (unused).

TM coherency status indicators (R 132, W 138) may be provided for eachcache line, in addition to, or encoded in the MESI coherency bits. An R132 indicator indicates the current transaction has read from the dataof the cache line, and a W 138 indicator indicates the currenttransaction has written to the data of the cache line.

In another aspect of TM design, a system is designed using transactionalstore buffers. U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,361 titled “Methods and Apparatus forReordering and Renaming Memory References in a Multiprocessor ComputerSystem,” filed Mar. 31, 2000 and incorporated by reference herein in itsentirety, teaches a method for reordering and renaming memory referencesin a multiprocessor computer system having at least a first and a secondprocessor. The first processor has a first private cache and a firstbuffer, and the second processor has a second private cache and a secondbuffer. The method includes the steps of, for each of a plurality ofgated store requests received by the first processor to store a datum,exclusively acquiring a cache line that contains the datum by the firstprivate cache, and storing the datum in the first buffer. Upon the firstbuffer receiving a load request from the first processor to load aparticular datum, the particular datum is provided to the firstprocessor from among the data stored in the first buffer based on anin-order sequence of load and store operations. Upon the first cachereceiving a load request from the second cache for a given datum, anerror condition is indicated and a current state of at least one of theprocessors is reset to an earlier state when the load request for thegiven datum corresponds to the data stored in the first buffer.

The main implementation components of one such transactional memoryfacility are a transaction-backup register file for holdingpre-transaction GR (general register) content, a cache directory totrack the cache lines accessed during the transaction, a store cache tobuffer stores until the transaction ends, and firmware routines toperform various complex functions. In this section a detailedimplementation is described.

IBM zEnterprise EC12 Enterprise Server Embodiment

The IBM zEnterprise EC12 enterprise server introduces transactionalexecution (TX) in transactional memory, and is described in part in apaper, “Transactional Memory Architecture and Implementation for IBMSystem z” of Proceedings Pages 25-36 presented at MICRO-45, 1-5 Dec.2012, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, available from IEEE ComputerSociety Conference Publishing Services (CPS), which is incorporated byreference herein in its entirety.

Table 3 shows an example transaction. Transactions started with TBEGINare not assured to ever successfully complete with TEND, since they canexperience an aborting condition at every attempted execution, e.g., dueto repeating conflicts with other CPUs. This requires that the programsupports a fallback path to perform the same operationnon-transactionally, e.g., by using traditional locking schemes. Thisputs significant burden on the programming and software verificationteams, especially where the fallback path is not automatically generatedby a reliable compiler.

TABLE 3 Example Transaction Code LHI0 R0,0 *initialize retry count=0loop TBEGIN *begin transaction JNZ abort *go to abort code if CC1=0 LTR1, lock *load and test the fallback lock JNZ lckbzy *branch if lockbusy ... perform operation ... TEND *end transaction ...  ...  ...  ...lckbzy TABORT *abort if lock busy; this *resumes after TBEGIN abort JOfallback *no retry if CC=3 AHI R0, 1 *increment retry count CIJNL R0,6,fallback *give up after 6 attempts PPA R0, TX *random delay based onretry count ... potentially wait for lock to become free ... J loop*jump back to retry fallback OBTAIN lock *using Compare&Swap ... performoperation ... RELEASE lock ...  ...  ...  ...

The requirement of providing a fallback path for aborted TransactionExecution (TX) transactions can be onerous. Many transactions operatingon shared data structures are expected to be short, touch only a fewdistinct memory locations, and use simple instructions only. For thosetransactions, the IBM zEnterprise EC12 introduces the concept ofconstrained transactions; under normal conditions, the CPU 114 assuresthat constrained transactions eventually end successfully, albeitwithout giving a strict limit on the number of necessary retries. Aconstrained transaction starts with a TBEGINC instruction and ends witha regular TEND. Implementing a task as a constrained or non-constrainedtransaction typically results in very comparable performance, butconstrained transactions simplify software development by removing theneed for a fallback path. IBM's Transactional Execution architecture isfurther described in z/Architecture, Principles of Operation, TenthEdition, SA22-7832-09 published September 2012 from IBM, incorporated byreference herein in its entirety.

A constrained transaction starts with the TBEGINC instruction. Atransaction initiated with TBEGINC must follow a list of programmingconstraints; otherwise the program takes a non-filterableconstraint-violation interruption. Exemplary constraints may include,but not be limited to: the transaction can execute a maximum of 32instructions, all instruction text must be within 256 consecutive bytesof memory; the transaction contains only forward-pointing relativebranches (i.e., no loops or subroutine calls); the transaction canaccess a maximum of 4 aligned octowords (an octoword is 32 bytes) ofmemory; and restriction of the instruction-set to exclude complexinstructions like decimal or floating-point operations. The constraintsare chosen such that many common operations like doubly linkedlist-insert/delete operations can be performed, including the verypowerful concept of atomic compare-and-swap targeting up to 4 alignedoctowords. At the same time, the constraints were chosen conservativelysuch that future CPU implementations can assure transaction successwithout needing to adjust the constraints, since that would otherwiselead to software incompatibility.

TBEGINC mostly behaves like XBEGIN in Intel® TSX or TBEGIN on IBM'szEC12 servers, except that the floating-point register (FPR) control andthe program interruption filtering fields do not exist and the controlsare considered to be zero. On a transaction abort, the instructionaddress is set back directly to the TBEGINC instead of to theinstruction after, reflecting the immediate retry and absence of anabort path for constrained transactions.

Nested transactions are not allowed within constrained transactions, butif a TBEGINC occurs within a non-constrained transaction it is treatedas opening a new non-constrained nesting level just like TBEGIN would.This can occur, e.g., if a non-constrained transaction calls asubroutine that uses a constrained transaction internally.

Since interruption filtering is implicitly off, all exceptions during aconstrained transaction lead to an interruption into the operatingsystem (OS). Eventual successful finishing of the transaction relies onthe capability of the OS to page-in the at most 4 pages touched by anyconstrained transaction. The OS must also ensure time-slices long enoughto allow the transaction to complete.

TABLE 4 Transaction Code Example TBEGINC *begin constrained transaction... perform operation ... TEND *end transaction

Table 4 shows the constrained-transactional implementation of the codein Table 3, assuming that the constrained transactions do not interactwith other locking-based code. No lock testing is shown therefore, butcould be added if constrained transactions and lock-based code weremixed.

When failure occurs repeatedly, software emulation is performed usingmillicode as part of system firmware. Advantageously, constrainedtransactions have desirable properties because of the burden removedfrom programmers.

The IBM zEnterprise EC12 processor introduced the transactionalexecution facility. The processor can decode 3 instructions per clockcycle; simple instructions are dispatched as single micro-ops, and morecomplex instructions are cracked into multiple micro-ops 232 b. Themicro-ops (Uops 232 b, shown in FIG. 3) are written into a unified issuequeue 216, from where they can be issued out-of-order. Up to twofixed-point, one floating-point, two load/store, and two branchinstructions can execute every cycle. A Global Completion Table (GCT)232 holds every micro-op and a transaction nesting depth (TND) 232 a.The GCT 232 is written in-order at decode time, tracks the executionstatus of each micro-op, and completes instructions when all micro-ops232 b of the oldest instruction group have successfully executed.

The level 1 (L1) data cache 240 (FIG. 3) is a 96 KB (kilo-byte) 6-wayassociative cache with 256 byte cache-lines and 4 cycle use latency,coupled to a private 1 MB (mega-byte) 8-way associative 2nd-level (L2)data cache 268 (FIG. 3) with 7 cycles use-latency penalty for L1 misses.L1 cache 240 (FIG. 3) is the cache closest to a processor and Ln cacheis a cache at the nth level of caching. Both L1 240 (FIG. 3) and L2 268(FIG. 3) caches are store-through. Six cores on each central processor(CP) chip share a 48 MB 3rd-level store-in cache, and six CP chips areconnected to an off-chip 384 MB 4th-level cache, packaged together on aglass ceramic multi-chip module (MCM). Up to 4 multi-chip modules (MCMs)can be connected to a coherent symmetric multi-processor (SMP) systemwith up to 144 cores (not all cores are available to run customerworkload).

Coherency is managed with a variant of the MESI protocol. Cache-linescan be owned read-only (shared) or exclusive; the L1 240 (FIG. 3) and L2268 (FIG. 3) are store-through and thus do not contain dirty lines. TheL3 and L4 caches are store-in and track dirty states. Each cache isinclusive of all its connected lower level caches.

Coherency requests are called “cross interrogates” (XI) and are senthierarchically from higher level to lower-level caches, and between theL4s. When one core misses the L1 240 (FIG. 3) and L2 268 (FIG. 3) andrequests the cache line from its local L3, the L3 checks whether it ownsthe line, and if necessary sends an XI to the currently owning L2 268(FIG. 3)/L1 240 (FIG. 3) under that L3 to ensure coherency, before itreturns the cache line to the requestor. If the request also misses theL3, the L3 sends a request to the L4 which enforces coherency by sendingXIs to all necessary L3s under that L4, and to the neighboring L4s. Thenthe L4 responds to the requesting L3 which forwards the response to theL2 268 (FIG. 3)/L1 240 (FIG. 3).

Note that due to the inclusivity rule of the cache hierarchy, sometimescache lines are XI'ed from lower-level caches due to evictions onhigher-level caches caused by associativity overflows from requests toother cache lines. These XIs can be called “LRU XIs”, where LRU standsfor least recently used.

Making reference to yet another type of XI requests, Demote-XIstransition cache-ownership from exclusive into read-only state, andExclusive-XIs transition cache ownership from exclusive into invalidstate. Demote-XIs and Exclusive-XIs need a response back to the XIsender. The target cache can “accept” the XI, or send a “reject”response if it first needs to evict dirty data before accepting the XI.The L1 240 (FIG. 3)/L2 268 (FIG. 3) caches are store through, but mayreject demote-XIs and exclusive XIs if they have stores in their storequeues that need to be sent to L3 before downgrading the exclusivestate. A rejected XI will be repeated by the sender. Read-only-XIs aresent to caches that own the line read-only; no response is needed forsuch XIs since they cannot be rejected. The details of the SMP protocolare similar to those described for the IBM z10 by P. Mak, C. Walters,and G. Strait, in “IBM System z10 processor cache subsystemmicroarchitecture”, IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol 53:1,2009, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

Transactional Instruction Execution

FIG. 3 depicts example components of an example CPU. The instructiondecode unit (IDU) 208 keeps track of the current transaction nestingdepth (TND) 212. When the IDU 208 receives a TBEGIN instruction, the IDU208 sends a unique identifier to the transaction length predictor(predictor) 290. A new entry is allocated if one does not already existin the TX execution history 291, and a LRU algorithm may be used to freeup an entry when more space is needed. A new entry for the transactionshould have an infinite (or very large) predicted length. If an entrydoes exist the predicted length for that identifier is sent to CPUcontrol logic, for example shown here as compare logic 292, which willcompare the predicted length value with that of the current transaction,as metric information is accumulated. Following the initialization of aTX execution history entry 291, a metric counter 293 is reset and thenstarted to count the number of events of the specified metric, forexample CPU clock cycles or memory accesses, accumulated in thetransaction. While the counter is shown as part of the predictor 290,the counter may also be external to the predictor 290, such as anothercomponent of the CPU. When a corresponding TEND instruction completes,the count of the specified metric is used to update the associated TXexecution history entry 291 in the predictor 290. During transactionalexecution, the metric counter 293 is updated for each observed event,such as a CPU clock cycle or a memory access. The current count iscompared with the predicted count from the TX execution history 291entry minus some threshold value. If the current count is greater, thenthe predictor 290 will signal the CPU to take actions to prevent thetransaction from aborting. A threshold value may include, for example, astatic percentage of measured units (i.e., execution units) used by thetransaction from its TX execution history entry 291. These may includedelaying releasing a cache line that was written to by the transaction,delaying handling asynchronous interrupts, and delaying a response to aTLB invalidation.

When the IDU 208 receives a TBEGIN instruction, the nesting depth isincremented, and conversely decremented on TEND instructions. Thenesting depth is written into the GCT 232 for every dispatchedinstruction. When a TBEGIN or TEND is decoded on a speculative path thatlater gets flushed, the IDU's 208 nesting depth is refreshed from theyoungest GCT 232 entry that is not flushed. The transactional state isalso written into the issue queue 216 for consumption by the executionunits, mostly by the Load/Store Unit (LSU) 280. The TBEGIN instructionmay specify a transaction diagnostic block (TDB) for recording statusinformation, should the transaction abort before reaching a TENDinstruction.

Similar to the nesting depth, the IDU 208/GCT 232 collaboratively trackthe access register/floating-point register (AR/FPR) modification masksthrough the transaction nest; the IDU 208 can place an abort requestinto the GCT 232 when an AR/FPR-modifying instruction is decoded and themodification mask blocks that. When the instruction becomesnext-to-complete, completion is blocked and the transaction aborts.Other restricted instructions are handled similarly, including TBEGIN ifdecoded while in a constrained transaction, or exceeding the maximumnesting depth.

An outermost TBEGIN is cracked into multiple micro-ops depending on theGR-Save-Mask; each micro-op 232 b will be executed by one of the twofixed point units (FXUs) 220 to save a pair of GRs 228 into a specialtransaction-backup register file 224, that is used to later restore theGR 228 content in case of a transaction abort. Also the TBEGIN spawnsmicro-ops 232 b to perform an accessibility test for the TDB if one isspecified; the address is saved in a special purpose register for laterusage in the abort case. At the decoding of an outermost TBEGIN, theinstruction address and the instruction text of the TBEGIN are alsosaved in special purpose registers for a potential abort processinglater on.

TEND and NTSTG are single micro-op 232 b instructions; NTSTG(non-transactional store) is handled like a normal store except that itis marked as non-transactional in the issue queue so that the LSU 280can treat it appropriately. TEND is a no-op at execution time, theending of the transaction is performed when TEND completes.

As mentioned, instructions that are within a transaction are marked assuch in the issue queue 216, but otherwise execute mostly unchanged; theLSU 280 performs isolation tracking as described in the next section.

Since decoding is in-order, and since the IDU 208 keeps track of thecurrent transactional state and writes it into the issue queue 216 alongwith every instruction from the transaction, execution of TBEGIN, TEND,and instructions before, within, and after the transaction can beperformed out-of order. An effective address calculator 236 is includedin the LSU 280. It is even possible (though unlikely) that TEND isexecuted first, then the entire transaction, and lastly the TBEGINexecutes. Program order is restored through the GCT 232 at completiontime. The length of transactions is not limited by the size of the GCT232, since general purpose registers (GRs) 228 can be restored from thebackup register file 224.

During execution, the program event recording (PER) events are filteredbased on the Event Suppression Control, and a PER TEND event is detectedif enabled. Similarly, while in transactional mode, a pseudo-randomgenerator may be causing the random aborts as enabled by the TransactionDiagnostics Control.

Tracking for Transactional Isolation

The Load/Store Unit tracks cache lines that were accessed duringtransactional execution, and triggers an abort if an XI from another CPU(or an LRU-XI) conflicts with the footprint. If the conflicting XI is anexclusive or demote XI, the LSU rejects the XI back to the L3 in thehope of finishing the transaction before the L3 repeats the XI. This“stiff-arming” is very efficient in highly contended transactions. Inorder to prevent hangs when two CPUs stiff-arm each other, a XI-rejectcounter is implemented, which triggers a transaction abort when athreshold is met.

The L1 cache directory 240 is traditionally implemented with staticrandom access memories (SRAMs). For the transactional memoryimplementation, the valid bits 244 (64 rows×6 ways) of the directoryhave been moved into normal logic latches, and are supplemented with twomore bits per cache line: the TX-read 248 and TX-dirty 252 bits.

The TX-read 248 bits are reset when a new outermost TBEGIN is decoded(which is interlocked against a prior still pending transaction). TheTX-read 248 bit is set at execution time by every load instruction thatis marked “transactional” in the issue queue. Note that this can lead toover-marking if speculative loads are executed, for example on amispredicted branch path. The alternative of setting the TX-read bit atload completion time was too expensive for silicon area, since multipleloads can complete at the same time, requiring many read-ports on theload-queue.

Stores execute the same way as in non-transactional mode, but atransaction mark is placed in the store queue (STQ) 260 entry of thestore instruction. At write-back time, when the data from the STQ 260 iswritten into the L1 240, the TX-dirty 252 bit in the L1-directory 256 isset for the written cache line. Store write-back into the L1 240 occursonly after the store instruction has completed, and at most one store iswritten back per cycle. Before completion and write-back, loads canaccess the data from the STQ 260 by means of store-forwarding; afterwrite-back, the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) can access the speculatively updateddata in the L1 240. If the transaction ends successfully, the TX-dirtybits 252 of all cache-lines are cleared, and also the TX-marks of notyet written stores are cleared in the STQ 260, effectively turning thepending stores into normal stores.

On a transaction abort, all pending transactional stores are invalidatedfrom the STQ 260, even those already completed. All cache lines thatwere modified by the transaction in the L1 240, that is, have theTX-dirty bit 252 on, have their valid bits turned off, effectivelyremoving them from the L1 240 cache instantaneously.

The architecture requires that before completing a new instruction, theisolation of the transaction read- and write-set is maintained. Thisisolation is ensured by stalling instruction completion at appropriatetimes when XIs are pending; speculative out-of order execution isallowed, optimistically assuming that the pending XIs are to differentaddresses and not actually cause a transaction conflict. This designfits very naturally with the XI-vs-completion interlocks that areimplemented on prior systems to ensure the strong memory ordering thatthe architecture requires.

When the L1 240 receives an XI, L1 240 accesses the directory to checkvalidity of the XI'ed address in the L1 240, and if the TX-read bit 248is active on the XI'ed line and the XI is not rejected, the LSU 280triggers an abort. When a cache line with active TX-read bit 248 isLRU'ed from the L1 240, a special LRU-extension vector remembers foreach of the 64 rows of the L1 240 that a TX-read line existed on thatrow. Since no precise address tracking exists for the LRU extensions,any non-rejected XI that hits a valid extension row the LSU 280 triggersan abort. Providing the LRU-extension effectively increases the readfootprint capability from the L1-size to the L2-size and associativity,provided no conflicts with other CPUs 114 (FIG. 2) against thenon-precise LRU-extension tracking causes aborts.

The store footprint is limited by the store cache size (the store cacheis discussed in more detail below) and thus implicitly by the L2 sizeand associativity. No LRU-extension action needs to be performed when aTX-dirty cache line is LRU'ed from the L1.

Store Cache

In prior systems, since the L1 240 and L2 268 are store-through caches,every store instruction causes an L3 store access; with now 6 cores perL3 and further improved performance of each core, the store rate for theL3 (and to a lesser extent for the L2) becomes problematic for certainworkloads. In order to avoid store queuing delays a gathering storecache had to be added, that combines stores to neighboring addressesbefore sending them to the L3.

For transactional memory performance, it is acceptable to invalidateevery TX-dirty cache line from the L1 240 on transaction aborts, becausethe L2 cache 268 is very close (7 cycles L1 miss penalty) to bring backthe clean lines. However, it would be unacceptable for performance (andsilicon area for tracking) to have transactional stores write the L2 268before the transaction ends and then invalidate all dirty L2 cache lineson abort (or even worse on the shared L3).

The two problems of store bandwidth and transactional memory storehandling can both be addressed with the gathering store cache. The cache264 is a circular queue of 64 entries, each entry holding 128 bytes ofdata with byte-precise valid bits. In non-transactional operation, whena store is received from the LSU 280, the store cache 264 checks whetheran entry exists for the same address, and if so gathers the new storeinto the existing entry. If no entry exists, a new entry is written intothe queue, and if the number of free entries falls under a threshold,the oldest entries are written back to the L2 268 and L3 caches.

When a new outermost transaction begins, all existing entries in thestore cache are marked closed so that no new stores can be gathered intothem, and eviction of those entries to L2 268 and L3 is started. Fromthat point on, the transactional stores coming out of the LSU 280 STQ260 allocate new entries, or gather into existing transactional entries.The write-back of those stores into L2 268 and L3 is blocked, until thetransaction ends successfully; at that point subsequent(post-transaction) stores can continue to gather into existing entries,until the next transaction closes those entries again.

The store cache 264 is queried on every exclusive or demote XI, andcauses an XI reject if the XI compares to any active entry. If the coreis not completing further instructions while continuously rejecting XIs,the transaction is aborted at a certain threshold to avoid hangs.

The LSU 280 requests a transaction abort when the store cache 264overflows. The LSU 280 detects this condition when it tries to send anew store that cannot merge into an existing entry, and the entire storecache 264 is filled with stores from the current transaction. The storecache 264 is managed as a subset of the L2 268: while transactionallydirty lines can be evicted from the L1 240, they have to stay residentin the L2 268 throughout the transaction. The maximum store footprint isthus limited to the store cache size of 64×128 bytes, and it is alsolimited by the associativity of the L2 268. Since the L2 268 is 8-wayassociative and has 512 rows, it is typically large enough to not causetransaction aborts.

If a transaction aborts, the store cache 264 is notified and all entriesholding transactional data are invalidated. The store cache 264 also hasa mark per doubleword (8 bytes) whether the entry was written by a NTSTGinstruction—those doublewords stay valid across transaction aborts.

Millicode-Implemented Functions

Traditionally, IBM mainframe server processors contain a layer offirmware called millicode which performs complex functions like certainCISC instruction executions, interruption handling, systemsynchronization, and RAS. Millicode includes machine dependentinstructions as well as instructions of the instruction set architecture(ISA) that are fetched and executed from memory similarly toinstructions of application programs and the operating system (OS).Firmware resides in a restricted area of main memory that customerprograms cannot access. When hardware detects a situation that needs toinvoke millicode, the instruction fetching unit 204 switches into“millicode mode” and starts fetching at the appropriate location in themillicode memory area. Millicode may be fetched and executed in the sameway as instructions of the instruction set architecture (ISA), and mayinclude ISA instructions.

For transactional memory, millicode is involved in various complexsituations. Every transaction abort invokes a dedicated millicodesub-routine to perform the necessary abort steps. The transaction-abortmillicode starts by reading special-purpose registers (SPRs) holding thehardware internal abort reason, potential exception reasons, and theaborted instruction address, which millicode then uses to store a TDB ifone is specified. The TBEGIN instruction text is loaded from an SPR toobtain the GR-save-mask, which is needed for millicode to know which GRs228 to restore.

The CPU 114 (FIG. 2) supports a special millicode-only instruction toread out the backup-GRs and copy them into the main GRs. The TBEGINinstruction address is also loaded from an SPR to set the newinstruction address in the Program Status Word (PSW) to continueexecution after the TBEGIN once the millicode abort sub-routinefinishes. That PSW may later be saved as program-old PSW in case theabort is caused by a non-filtered program interruption.

The TABORT instruction may be millicode implemented; when the IDU 208decodes TABORT, it instructs the instruction fetch unit to branch intoTABORT's millicode, from which millicode branches into the common abortsub-routine.

The Extract Transaction Nesting Depth (ETND) instruction may also bemillicoded, since it is not performance critical; millicode loads thecurrent nesting depth out of a special hardware register and places itinto a GR 228. The PPA instruction is millicoded; it performs theoptimal delay based on the current abort count provided by software asan operand to PPA, and also based on other hardware internal state.

For constrained transactions, millicode may keep track of the number ofaborts. The counter is reset to 0 on successful TEND completion, or ifan interruption into the OS occurs (since it is not known if or when theOS will return to the program). Depending on the current abort count,millicode can invoke certain mechanisms to improve the chance of successfor the subsequent transaction retry. The mechanisms involve, forexample, successively increasing random delays between retries, andreducing the amount of speculative execution to avoid encounteringaborts caused by speculative accesses to data that the transaction isnot actually using. As a last resort, millicode can broadcast to otherCPUs to stop all conflicting work, retry the local transaction, beforereleasing the other CPUs to continue normal processing. Multiple CPUsmust be coordinated to not cause deadlocks, so some serializationbetween millicode instances on different CPUs is required.

Referring now to FIG. 4, 400 generally illustrates an exemplaryembodiment for predicting the length of a transaction. As describedabove, a transaction may abort due to conflicting memory accesses, i.e.,interferences, between the transactionally executing CPU 114 (FIG. 2)and a process executing on another logical processor. If another CPU 114(FIG. 2) attempts to read or to store to a memory location that was usedby the transaction, the transaction will abort even if it is nearlycomplete. When a predictor component of the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) cananticipate that the end of the transaction is reasonably near, the CPU114 (FIG. 2) may take measures to complete the transaction thus avoidingthe performance inefficiency of rolling back the results and restartingthe transaction. Exemplary actions to delay the abort include thosesimilarly performed for a constrained transaction. These may includedelaying releasing a cache line that was written to by the transaction,delaying handling asynchronous interrupts, and delaying a response to aTLB invalidation. In this exemplary embodiment the predictor componentis implemented in hardware (predictor 290 FIG. 3). In anotherembodiment, the predictor component may be implemented in software.

Generally, a transaction may represent a series of computer instructionsthat execute as a unit. The transaction may be expected to executerepeatedly, and may present a pattern within each execution. Thus, overtime the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may both record an average time for atransaction's execution as well as predict, within a statistical range,or threshold, the time the transaction may take for its next execution.The predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may determine the length of a transaction(i.e., how long a transaction may take to complete) in one or more ways,either singularly or in combination. In one metric unit, the predictor290 (FIG. 3) may count the instructions between the beginning of atransaction, e.g., TBEGIN, and the instruction indicating the end of thetransaction, e.g., TEND. Other metric units may include a count of anumber of memory accesses within the transaction, a count of a number ofCPU clock cycles, or elapsed wall clock time.

A more complex prediction may be calculated based on patterns ofexecution, such as a number of instruction branches or how manyinstructions are executed in a particular pattern. For example, over thecourse of several executions the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may trackalternating patterns that may be measured in units (i.e., executionunits), such as for example CPU processor cycles per second. Apredictable pattern of execution may be suggested where the transactionbeing tracked consumes 500 units, 1000 units, 200 units, 500 units, 1000units, 200 units, and so on. By knowing this pattern, the predictor mayrefine its threshold determination.

At 405 a processor, such as CPU 114 (FIG. 2), may receive an instructionwhile executing within a transaction. However, if at 405 the instructionis received outside of a transaction, at 410 the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) maydecode the received instruction to determine at 415 whether it is onethat initiates a transaction, such as a TBEGIN instruction. If at 415the received instruction does not initiate a transaction, the CPU 114(FIG. 2) may recognize this as an error and exit until anotherinstruction is received for evaluation.

If at 415 an instruction to begin a transaction is recognized, at 420the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) may initiate the transaction. The address of theinstruction, for example a TBEGIN instruction, that initiates thetransaction may be passed to the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) and used touniquely identify the transaction. In other embodiments, the transactionmay be uniquely identified by an instruction address of thetransaction's TEND instruction, or by an optional parameter on thetransaction's TBEGIN instruction.

The predictor 290 (FIG. 3) contains a TX execution history 291 (FIG. 3)with entries for previously completed transactions. These entries mayinclude state information about the transaction, a predicted length forthe transaction, and a threshold value. Using the unique transactionidentifier, the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may locate a TX execution historyentry matching the transaction identifier, or create a new entry, asneeded.

If at 425, the received instruction is identified at 460 as a TEND,indicating the successful completion of the transaction, then at 465 thepredictor 290 (FIG. 3) may update the TX execution history entry forthis transaction with metrics gathered during this execution of thetransaction. By counting only successful transaction completions,multiple retries of failed transactions are eliminated and preventedfrom polluting the accuracy of future predictions.

If at 425 the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) receives a request to abort itstransaction, at 430 the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may determine whether thetransaction is within a threshold of successfully completing andtherefore may signal the CPU 114 (FIG. 2) to attempt to prevent thetransaction from aborting

During transactional execution, the metric counter 293 (FIG. 3) isupdated for each observed event, such as a CPU clock cycle or a memoryaccess. At 435, the current count in the metric counter 293 (FIG. 3) isread, and at 440 the predicted count from the TX execution history 291(FIG. 3) entry is retrieved. Using these two values, a threshold valueis computed at 445. A threshold value may include, for example, a staticpercentage of measured units (i.e., execution units) used by thetransaction from its TX execution history 291 (FIG. 3) entry. At 450, ifthe current count in the metric counter 293 (FIG. 3) is greater than thepredicted count from the TX execution history 291 (FIG. 3) entry minusthe threshold value, then at 480 the predictor 290 (FIG. 3) may signalthe CPU 114 (FIG. 2) to take actions to prevent the transaction fromaborting. Exemplary actions to delay the abort include those similarlyperformed for a constrained transaction. These may include delayingreleasing a cache line that was written to by the transaction, delayinghandling asynchronous interrupts, and delaying a response to a TLBinvalidation. However, if at 450 the transaction is not within thecalculated threshold of successfully nearing completion, or if at 430the abort of the transaction may not be delayed, then at 475 the CPU 114(FIG. 2) may abort the transaction.

Referring now to FIG. 5, an embodiment for predicting a length of atransaction in a multi-processor transaction execution environment isdepicted. The processor begins executing a transaction 505 a pluralityof times 506, with each execution determining a corresponding durationof the transaction 510 The predictor of the processor predicts aduration for the execution of the transaction, based on thecorresponding durations of the transactions execution 515. A thresholdvalue for the execution of the transaction is determined 525. If anexecution of the transaction is within the threshold value of thepredicted duration 535, then the predictor of the processor notifies theprocessor to attempt to suppress 540 abort events from causing thetransaction to abort before completing 545. If an execution of thetransaction is not within the threshold value of the predicted duration535, then the predictor of the processor notifies the processor not toattempt to suppress 550 abort events from causing the transaction toabort before completing 555.

Referring now to FIG. 6, computing device 600 may include respectivesets of internal components 800 and external components 900. Each of thesets of internal components 800 includes one or more processors 820; oneor more computer-readable RAMs 822; one or more computer-readable ROMs824 on one or more buses 826; one or more operating systems 828; one ormore software applications executing the method 400; and one or morecomputer-readable tangible storage devices 830. The one or moreoperating systems 828 and device driver modules 829 are stored on one ormore of the respective computer-readable tangible storage devices 830for execution by one or more of the respective processors 820 via one ormore of the respective RAMs 822 (which typically include cache memory).In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 6, each of the computer-readabletangible storage devices 830 is a magnetic disk storage device of aninternal hard drive. Alternatively, each of the computer-readabletangible storage devices 830 is a semiconductor storage device such asROM 824, EPROM, flash memory or any other computer-readable tangiblestorage device that can store a computer program and digitalinformation.

Each set of internal components 800 also includes a R/W drive orinterface 832 to read from and write to one or more computer-readabletangible storage devices 936 such as a thin provisioning storage device,CD-ROM, DVD, SSD, memory stick, magnetic tape, magnetic disk, opticaldisk or semiconductor storage device. The R/W drive or interface 832 maybe used to load the device driver 840 firmware, software, or microcodeto tangible storage device 936 to facilitate communication withcomponents of computing device 600.

Each set of internal components 800 may also include network adapters(or switch port cards) or interfaces 836 such as a TCP/IP adapter cards,wireless WI-FI interface cards, or 3G or 4G wireless interface cards orother wired or wireless communication links. The operating system 828that is associated with computing device 600, can be downloaded tocomputing device 600 from an external computer (e.g., server) via anetwork (for example, the Internet, a local area network or wide areanetwork) and respective network adapters or interfaces 836. From thenetwork adapters (or switch port adapters) or interfaces 836 andoperating system 828 associated with computing device 600 are loadedinto the respective hard drive 830 and network adapter 836. The networkmay comprise copper wires, optical fibers, wireless transmission,routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and/or edge servers.

Each of the sets of external components 900 can include a computerdisplay monitor 920, a keyboard 930, and a computer mouse 934. Externalcomponents 900 can also include touch screens, virtual keyboards, touchpads, pointing devices, and other human interface devices. Each of thesets of internal components 800 also includes device drivers 840 tointerface to computer display monitor 920, keyboard 930 and computermouse 934. The device drivers 840, R/W drive or interface 832 andnetwork adapter or interface 836 comprise hardware and software (storedin storage device 830, tangible storage device(s) 936, and/or ROM 824).

Various embodiments of the disclosure may be implemented in a dataprocessing system suitable for storing and/or executing program codethat includes at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly tomemory elements through a system bus. The memory elements include, forinstance, local memory employed during actual execution of the programcode, bulk storage, and cache memory which provide temporary storage ofat least some program code in order to reduce the number of times codemust be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.

Input/Output or I/O devices (including, but not limited to, keyboards,displays, pointing devices, DASD, tape, CDs, DVDs, thumb drives andother memory media, etc.) can be coupled to the system either directlyor through intervening I/O controllers. Network adapters may also becoupled to the system to enable the data processing system to becomecoupled to other data processing systems or remote printers or storagedevices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cablemodems, and Ethernet cards are just a few of the available types ofnetwork adapters.

The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computerprogram product. The computer program product may include a computerreadable storage medium (or media) having computer readable programinstructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of thepresent invention.

The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that canretain and store instructions for use by an instruction executiondevice. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but isnot limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device,an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, asemiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of theforegoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of thecomputer readable storage medium includes the following: a portablecomputer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), aread-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROMor Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portablecompact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD),a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such aspunch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructionsrecorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. Acomputer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construedas being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freelypropagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagatingthrough a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulsespassing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmittedthrough a wire.

Computer readable program instructions described herein can bedownloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computerreadable storage medium or to an external computer or external storagedevice via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, awide area network and/or a wireless network. The network may comprisecopper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wirelesstransmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and/oredge servers. A network adapter card or network interface in eachcomputing/processing device receives computer readable programinstructions from the network and forwards the computer readable programinstructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium withinthe respective computing/processing device.

Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations ofthe present invention may be assembler instructions,instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions,machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions,state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in anycombination of one or more programming languages, including an objectoriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like,and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C”programming language or similar programming languages. The computerreadable program instructions may execute entirely on the user'scomputer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone softwarepackage, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computeror entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario,the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through anytype of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide areanetwork (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer(for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example,programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), orprogrammable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readableprogram instructions by utilizing state information of the computerreadable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry,in order to perform aspects of the present invention.

Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer readable program instructions.

These computer readable program instructions may be provided to aprocessor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, orother programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, suchthat the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computeror other programmable data processing apparatus, create means forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructionsmay also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can directa computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or otherdevices to function in a particular manner, such that the computerreadable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises anarticle of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects ofthe function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram blockor blocks.

The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto acomputer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other deviceto cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer,other programmable apparatus or other device to produce a computerimplemented process, such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer, other programmable apparatus, or other device implement thefunctions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block orblocks.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate thearchitecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementationsof systems, methods, and computer program products according to variousembodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in theflowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portionof instructions, which comprises one or more executable instructions forimplementing the specified logical function(s). In some alternativeimplementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of theorder noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in successionmay, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks maysometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon thefunctionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of theblock diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocksin the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implementedby special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specifiedfunctions or acts or carry out combinations of special purpose hardwareand computer instructions.

Although preferred embodiments have been depicted and described indetail herein, it will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant artthat various modifications, additions, substitutions and the like can bemade without departing from the spirit of the disclosure, and these are,therefore, considered to be within the scope of the disclosure, asdefined in the following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for predicting a length of a transactionin a multi-processor transaction execution environment, the methodcomprising: executing, by a processor, a transaction a plurality oftimes, each execution determining a corresponding duration of thetransaction; based on the corresponding durations of the transactionsexecuted, predicting, by the processor, a predicted duration forexecuting the transaction; and determining a threshold value; based onthe predicted duration, determining whether an execution of thetransaction is within the threshold value of the predicted duration; andbased on determining the execution of the transaction is within thethreshold value, suppressing abort events from causing the transactionto abort before completing.
 2. The method according to claim 1, furthercomprising: calculating an average time for the execution of thetransaction based on at least one execution of the transaction; andupdating the average time in a predictor of the processor based on asuccessful completion of the transaction.
 3. The method according toclaim 1, wherein the calculated duration for the execution of the TMtransaction is discarded, based on an unsuccessful execution of the TMtransaction; and wherein the calculated duration for the execution ofthe TM transaction is updated in the predictor of the processor, basedon a successful execution of the TM transaction.
 4. The method accordingto claim 1, wherein the delaying the transaction from aborting furthercomprises: comparing metrics from previous executions of the transactionagainst the calculated metrics for a current execution of thetransaction to determine whether the transaction is nearing completion;and based on the comparing being within the threshold of completion,delaying the transaction from aborting.
 5. The method according to claim1, wherein the calculating comprises tracking one or more metric units,the one or more metric units comprises at least one of: a number ofinstructions in the transaction; a number of memory accesses performedin the transaction; a number of measured units used in the transaction;a number of CPU cycles used in the transaction; and an elapsed timebetween the transaction beginning and the transaction ending.
 6. Themethod according to claim 1, wherein the threshold value comprises anyone of: a percentage of metric units used in the transaction; and anumber of metric units, wherein based on the accumulated count of themetric units exceeding the number of metric units, the processorsuppresses abort events from causing the transaction to abort beforecompleting.
 7. A computer program product for predicting a length of atransaction in a multi-processor transaction execution environment, thecomputer program product comprising: a computer readable storage mediumreadable by a processing circuit and storing instructions for executionby the processing circuit for performing a method comprising: executing,by a processor, a transaction a plurality of times, each executiondetermining a corresponding duration of the transaction; based on thecorresponding durations of the transactions executed, predicting, by theprocessor, a predicted duration for executing the transaction; anddetermining a threshold value; based on the predicted duration,determining whether an execution of the transaction is within thethreshold value of the predicted duration; and based on determining theexecution of the transaction is within the threshold value, suppressingabort events from causing the transaction to abort before completing. 8.The computer program product according to claim 7, further comprising:calculating an average time for the execution of the transaction basedon at least one execution of the transaction; and updating the averagetime in a predictor of the processor based on a successful completion ofthe transaction.
 9. The computer program product according to claim 9,wherein the delaying the transaction from aborting further comprises:comparing metric units from previous executions of the transactionagainst the calculated metric units for a current execution of thetransaction to determine whether the transaction is nearing completion;and based on the comparing being within the threshold of completion,delaying the transaction from aborting.
 10. The computer program productaccording to claim 9, wherein the one or more metric units comprise anyone of: a number of instructions in the TM transaction; a number ofmemory accesses performed in the TM transaction; a number of measuredunits used in the TM transaction; a number of CPU cycles used in the TMtransaction; and an elapsed time between the TM transaction beginningand the TM transaction ending.
 11. The computer program productaccording to claim 7, wherein the threshold value comprises any one of:a percentage of metric units used in the transaction; and a number ofmetric units, wherein based on the accumulated count of the metric unitsexceeding the number of metric units, the processor suppresses abortevents from causing the transaction to abort before completing.
 12. Thecomputer program product according to claim 7, further comprising:tracking the execution of the transaction a plurality of times, eachexecution being measured by a number of measured units used in thetransaction; identifying patterns in the tracked executions of thetransaction, based on the number of measured units used in thetransaction; and choosing the threshold value, based on the identifiedpatterns in the tracked executions of the transaction.
 13. The computerprogram product according to claim 9, wherein the metrics are indexed bytransaction, by the predictor of the processor, based on any one of: aninstruction address of a TBEGIN instruction of the transaction; aninstruction address of a TEND instruction of the transaction; and anoptional parameter of the TBEGIN instruction of the transaction.
 14. Acomputer system for predicting a length of a transaction in amulti-processor transaction execution environment, the computer programsystem comprising: a memory; and a processor in communications with thememory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method,said method comprising: executing, by a processor, a transaction aplurality of times, each execution determining a corresponding durationof the transaction; based on the corresponding durations of thetransactions executed, predicting, by the processor, a predictedduration for executing the transaction; and determining a thresholdvalue; based on the predicted duration, determining whether an executionof the transaction is within the threshold value of the predictedduration; and based on determining the execution of the transaction iswithin the threshold value, suppressing abort events from causing thetransaction to abort before completing.
 15. The computer systemaccording to claim 14, further comprising: calculating an average timefor the execution of the transaction based on at least one execution ofthe transaction; and updating the average time in a predictor of theprocessor based on a successful completion of the transaction.
 16. Thecomputer system according to claim 14, wherein the delaying thetransaction from aborting further comprises: comparing metric units fromprevious executions of the transaction against the calculated metricunits for a current execution of the transaction to determine whetherthe transaction is nearing completion; and based on the comparing beingwithin the threshold of completion, delaying the transaction fromaborting.
 17. The computer system according to claim 16, wherein the oneor more metric units comprise at least one of: a number of instructionsin the transaction; a number of memory accesses performed in thetransaction; a number of measured units used in the transaction; anumber of CPU cycles used in the transaction; and an elapsed timebetween the transaction beginning and the transaction ending.
 18. Thecomputer system according to claim 14, wherein the threshold valuecomprises any one of: a percentage of metric units used in thetransaction; and a number of metric units, wherein based on theaccumulated count of the metric units exceeding the number of metricunits, the processor suppresses abort events from causing thetransaction to abort before completing.
 19. The computer systemaccording to claim 14, further comprising: tracking the execution of thetransaction a plurality of times, each execution being measured by anumber of measured units used in the transaction; identifying patternsin the tracked executions of the transaction, based on the number ofmeasured units used in the transaction; and choosing the thresholdvalue, based on the identified patterns in the tracked executions of thetransaction.
 20. The computer system according to claim 14, wherein thecalculated duration for the execution of the TM transaction isdiscarded, based on an unsuccessful execution of the TM transaction; andwherein the calculated duration for the execution of the TM transactionis updated in the predictor of the processor, based on a successfulexecution of the TM transaction.